BlogStats

17 December 2010

California’s Purple Cargo Cults

CARB met yesterday to establish California’s cap n’ tax carbon trading program. RR readers are aware of how people who passed Econ 101 feel about this mournful event. (For details and analysis of its larger impact, see Russ Steele’s report on NCMW.)

Meanwhile, the progressives are besides themselves with glee. Half of them are happy that California’s ‘Global Warming Solutions Act’ aka AB32 will nudge us back toward the stone age, and the remaining dimwits remind me of the Cargo Cult natives of Papua-New Guinea. These poor souls gathered on mountain tops after WW2 where they built crude wooden replicas of the DC-3s that America used to supply its Pacific forces fighting the Japanese. The cargo airplanes brought in marvelous things the natives had never seen before, and for a little while that changed their lives. Now they were trying to attract more of these magical mechanical birds out of the sky filled with all kinds of good stuff. Such futile ceremonies went on for years.

Our ceremonies are just beginning. To many of us it is beyond belief that hereabouts otherwise normal looking people believe we can create jobs manufacturing competitive green tech or ‘cleantech’ products that can be sold worldwide. In that category China, India, and even Germany are miles ahead of us. With our coddled and overpaid workers, it will be near impossible to make and sell anything competitively on the world markets.

The only cleantech jobs that CARB’s new mandates will enable are those created from the ‘government gun to our head’ that force us to buy and install overpriced and unnecessary equipment for our homes and businesses. Much of this stuff is to be installed by properly licensed workers who will command outlandish wages for their efforts and our detriment. The bottom line is that the Great California Exodus will accelerate.

The simple economics of the matter is that you can’t arbitrarily add requirements and attendant costs to boost an economy. For example, mandating that all internal walls of California's buildings now must first receive an undercoat of specially processed purple paint to be applied by specially licensed union painters will not boost California’s economy, no matter how many purple paint painters are now out there putting on such undercoats.

However, in socialist economics this is a perfectly valid way for the government to stimulate an economy in doldrums. That it hasn’t worked in communist countries and it didn’t work here during the Great Depression is beside the point. Such historical facts are proscribed in our schools and never mentioned in the lame stream media. Bring on the purple paint and the purple paint painters.

Comments

George oh so true. Communism failed because the only export the could muster were inferior weaponry and nothing else. America was a positive exporter of goods because we were competitively priced and had the mechanisms in place for healthy competition. No one wanted USSR automobiles for instance. Well, when the government started mandating all those rules for cars and the unions took over, our 90% share went to 25% in a blink of an eye. Now with a housing bust the state wants sprinklers. With high gas prices the state wants a bigger share to shift the proceeds to rent seekers who create nothing. I have been in construction most of my life and I have seen the mandates thrust on the homeowner and the property owner become so overbearing the government has effectively destroyed the industry. Well, that is how they want in Sacramento and DC and when we are all lined up to become soylent green, maybe then people will pay attention.

I declare AB32 to be the most ill conceived crock of crap to come out of Sacramento.
From The Union/AP
"California is trying to fill the vacuum created by the failure of Congress to pass any kind of climate or energy legislation for many years now," said Nichols. Who the hell is CARB anyway? Who died and made them King? Nichols' quote is typical nanny state BS.
Look at the narcissistic nature of Nichols' power trippin' statement.

Government continues to grow unabated by deficits, unemployment and cries for liberty... only an idiot can believe that higher taxes and more regulations are the ingredients to happiness and prosperity... and these are the days of our lives.

Under the current system locating somewhere else is only a temporary (although often attempted) fix. As soon as the socialists take down one wealth generating jurisdiction, they start migrating with their Peter/Paul toolset to the next one that still creates wealth. They work the territory available to them sorta like the locusts do.

Steve "bite the hand that feeds" Frisch, if us tax payers all moved who would pay your salary!? Logic determines that you need us a hell of a lot more than we need you. BTW, your listed destinations are in the same battle against the collective. The foundation of The Great Divide is that like minded people would live amongst each other (the collectivists can dwell in equal misery while the capitalists live blessed in prosperity). Should I move to Idaho (though from my research Texas is #1 on the list) I would have to contend with the collectivists there. No Joy.

I'd like to get back to your analogy of the Cargo Cult natives, the second half of your so-called backwards "progressives," of which the first half also want to allegedly "nudge us back toward the stone age."

Firstly, I know a lot of folks in Nevada County employed in the video manufacturing business. I'd say that most of the hardware and software engineers who work here are either "progressives" or middle-of-the-road. I'd say only about 20% are right wing, which matches up with another 20% who are on the left wing. BTW, I don't necessarily agree that "progressives" and the left-wing are the same beast, but I'm lumping them into that category here in order to move the dialogue forward.

None of the progressives or left-wing folks that I know in Nevada County, as in "zero," are nudging us back to the stone age. That would be crazy, they would have to give up their Androids and iPhones.

Secondly, most of the "progressives" I know are pretty handy with a P&L and balance sheet...they know where stuff comes from (UPS or FedEx). Seriously though, as engineers, if the project doesn't pencil out, they know it might cost them their job.

The problem we seem to have here in Nevada County regarding technological innovation are the non-engineers promising pie in the sky to the customer, or canceling projects just as they are coming to fruition. They seem to me to be more worried about the daily "shareholder value," rather than the long-term health of their companies.

Investing in the future is not the same as building crude wooden replicas of DC-3s. Regarding "green" technology for future investment, in what sector would you rather us invest instead?

Michael, I believe the sample of left-wingers that you are citing may be skewed. None of the technically oriented left-wingers I also know want to nudge back toward the stone age. But many of the simpler ones do indeed want to do that.

Please do not confuse direction with destination. It is a malady afflicting light thinkers, and you definitely are not one of them. My use of ‘back toward the stone age’ is short for the simpleton activists militating toward a simpler, more bucolic, less technical, ‘inclusive’, loving, … lifestyle with which we are all familiar since the days of Woodstock (or even that successful fraud Thoreau).

In my decades I have found idealistic wage-earning liberal young engineers rapidly changing to free-market conservatives when they went off to start their own companies – exceptions: zero.

The crude wooden DC-3s are meant to symbolize the totems of a religion, not a form of technical development or investment for the future. The prime tenet of that religion is that if we will pass the market-stifling, tax and cost increasing regulations (here AB32 et al), then the subsidies will magically appear to make the whole thing work.

Your use of the word “investing in the future” when referring to gun-to-the-head government mandated economic nostrums has been extensively covered in these pages and, apparently, this debate is not over, but needs continue under its own topic. As an entrepreneur, I would invest in anything that I see the market for that is scalable and has prospects for growth. But I would then invest my own money, take my own risks, and keep my hands out of your pockets.

Steve Frisch President of the Sierra Business Council, you continue to show your miserable, hateful and narcissistic character. Your ability to attack those who fight for equality through personal liberty does not cover up your inability to participate in a reason/fact/logic based civil discussion. It is understandable to be uncomfortable living off of tax payers and evermore regulations. John Newton wrote a classic song after years of the same type of work.

To use my passion for equality through personal liberty and extrapolate my desire for a police state or some connection to the Aryan Nation proves your inability to think and your hatred of others. Ironic that it is your ideology which is progressing our country down tyranny rd. (where Aryans and police states thrive) and my ideology which insures a free republic.

We (those that DO pay your salary-see below) come here for discussion while you come here for a fight. What a legacy you are leaving.

I did find it interesting that you knew the locations of the Aryan Nation when I did not and that you consistently USE race in crude examples, that says a lot.

In 2008, 94% of Sierra Business Council's $1,336,618 funding was TAX PAYER $.

Looks like you need the pro version of Guide Star to get that level of financial details on SBC. What about 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2009 (I'm assuming 2010 is not yet available)? You're not cherry picking are you?

Mikey wrote: "No cherry picking, just the most recent year I could find in a 5 minute search. Link has it all."

I could just find one year. I remember reading another post from Steve F. for a year with a lesser percentage of grants.

But whatever. The term "rent seeker" is foul. It's reductionist. It does not move the discussion forward, it is actually a discussion-killer.

Mikey, have you ever walked the halls of the state capitol? Have you visited the offices of your state Assembly and Senator lately? Did you notice all those pretty women, and handsome men, dressed in $900 suits, languishing outside those offices, with badges from health care companies, and energy companies, and unions, and every single special interest that you can image??

Rent-seeking lobbyists, or partisan voices trying to make a difference?

"In economics, rent seeking occurs when an individual, organization or firm seeks to earn income by capturing economic rent through manipulation or exploitation of the economic environment, rather than by earning profits through economic transactions and the production of added wealth."

Mikey is in the private sector and is a very competent money manger. He is correct in his opinion. MichaelA, I would guess Mr. Frisch has some very nice suits and since he has posted from Washington DC and other areas of California this year, perhaps he is one of the "lobbyists" you speak derisively about? The point we on the right are making is simple, let us get away from taxpayer funded programs that receive little or no scrutiny, that abuse the political process for self preservation purposes and see if they can survive without the forcefully extracted taxes from the local grocery store clerk.

Mickey, I am just as much a patriotic American as you are. the difference between you an me is that I tolerate your insanity, whereas you seek to restrict my actions. The very concept of the Great Divide is separatism; and I ask you if you want to be separate from others based on ideology and belief systems, how far is that really from being separated on the basis of race? It is the same principle. How, if one seeks to be separate, does a community or society achieve that? The very concept is the antithesis of what it means to be a patriotic American. I consider you and your ilk, traitors to American ideals.

You don't pay my salary because our society, of which ALL of us are a part of, makes conscious decisions about how it allocates its resources to solve problems. In cases where I receive public funding it is to address a specific issue, at the behest of government, often because I can provide that service more effectively, at a lower cost, or more efficiently than government can. To say 'you pay my salary' and thus should have the right to demand anything, is akin to saying you pay the police officers salary and thus should have a right to decide which laws you follow.

As I have said here, and on other venues like The Union with many of you crazy mothers posting here, I will sit down with anyone, anytime, in public, with anyone who is willing to come out from behind their mask, to go over SBC's finances. I follow the letter of the law, which is the standard I am held to.

It is not up to you to determine what is the standard, society, of which you clearly do not want to be a part, does that.

By the way Mickey D. do you still have that video of a teenaged girl field stripping an AR-15 in less than 60 seconds on your web site? If I compare you to a separatist, crackpot, survivalist, violence prone, ideologue, who does not know how to get along well with others, it is because you act like one.

I did not start this tone of personal attack and vindictiveness on these web sites--George and Russ did--but I will be damned if I will ever back down to the likes of you in this society. This is my country, my liberty, my America, just as much as it is yours, and I am willing to fight for it.

SteveF wrote "... to be separate from others based on ideology and belief systems, how far is that really from being separated on the basis of race?"

To put the personal/cultural attributes of ideology and belief systems into close proximity with race (double helix) is a marvelous revelation of someone's worldview. It continues to underline the FUNDAMENTAL differences between the major factions seeking to gain dominance in America. And it also explains away why communication is near impossible between the two save on the most simple matters in the daily round. Congress really does mirror the land in its dysfunctionality.

Thanks for proving my point once again:
Steve Frisch President of the Sierra Business Council, you continue to show your miserable, hateful and narcissistic character. Your ability to attack those who fight for equality through personal liberty does not cover up your inability to participate in a reason/fact/logic based civil discussion. It is understandable to be uncomfortable living off of tax payers and evermore regulations. John Newton wrote a classic song after years of the same type of work.

To use my passion for equality through personal liberty and extrapolate my desire for a police state or some connection to the Aryan Nation proves your inability to think and your hatred of others. Ironic that it is your ideology which is progressing our country down tyranny rd. (where Aryans and police states thrive) and my ideology which insures a free republic.

We (those that DO pay your salary-see below) come here for discussion while you come here for a fight. What a legacy you are leaving.

I did find it interesting that you knew the locations of the Aryan Nation when I did not and that you consistently USE race in crude examples, that says a lot.

In 2008, 94% of Sierra Business Council's $1,336,618 funding was TAX PAYER $.

Todd wrote: "...perhaps [Steve Frisch] is one of the 'lobbyists' you speak derisively about?"

You missed my intent, Todd. I was not slamming lobbyists, I was trying to point out that one person's rent seeker is another person's lobbyist. Derisively labeling Steve Frisch a rent seeker, without recognizing and equally condemning the lobbyists in your own back pocket, is hypocritical.

Calling people rent seekers is also not a good way to foment a constructive dialogue. It's continued use here and over on Russ' blog tells me that rather than debate, its partisans would rather just have these as venues to "vent your spleen," as Steve F. suggests.

I know that both Mikey and George have condemned corporate lobbyists and economic industrial complexes that stifle competition, but I have yet to read their lobbyists also being described as rent seekers. And if you're really going to be tilting at the rent-seeking windmill, I would suggest that Mr. Frisch is pretty small potatoes, compared to the rent seekers at Exxon-Mobil, Goldman Sachs, and Pfizer.

I think that Steve's lobbying is actually the anti-thesis of lobbying by Exxon-Mobil, Goldman Sachs, and Pfizer; he is the counterweight to corporate economic cronyism. I would much rather contribute to his so-called rent-seeking salary over the salaries of the armies of Pfizer rent seekers who were hatched by the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003.

MichaelA, you misunderstand the point I was making. I do not like lobbyists either. When I worked at the State Capitol trying to assist in the construction of a bill which would save the taxpayers about 4 billion bucks, I came face to face with lobbyist's. The bill was squashed, (after six months)and it was squashed by Pete Wilson! Squashed for his buddies! So, you can support Frisch all you want but I consider him just as bad as the rest. The dying by a thousand cuts means to me a thousand SBC's are just as bad as say one Exxon. Also, please tell us how many private sector jobs have been created and at what cost [er job by SBC? How about the racial makeup of the staff? You see, we taxpayers have a right to that info, wouldn't you say? We like to know the facts of the rent seekers we are supporting.

And speaking of rent seeking, perhaps you'd read recently in the New Yorker magazine that in a boathouse near Hackensack, Minnesota were discovered long-missing "drafts, memos, and research materials" from President Eisenhower's Farewell Address that he delivered on January 17, 1961.

Eisenhower's address has long been regarded as one of the twentieth century's most prescient speeches (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm). One thing that hasn't been clear was whether his speech was merely a political afterthought, or the unexpected and suddenly public embodiment of his until then closely-held and intense alarm at the growth not just of a military industrial complex, but the entire corporate industrial complex as well.

Well, we finally have an answer to that question, it turns out that it was the latter. President Eisenhower's harbinger against ALL rent-seeking corporations nurtured by federal largess is present through every one of the 29 drafts of his speech. I suggest that you read the entire speech, but here is a particularly cogent section:
"Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in the newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research – these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.
But each proposal must be weighed in light of a broader consideration; the need to maintain balance in and among national programs – balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages – balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between the actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration."

In reading the 29 drafts, it becomes clear that he actually toned down the final draft. From the New Yorker:
"One core idea dominates every [draft] version: the first draft described 'the conjunction of a large and permanent military establishment and a large and permanent arms industry.' Policing it would require 'all the organizing genius we possess' to insure 'that liberty and security are both well served.' It added, 'We must be especially careful to avoid measures which would enable any segment of this vast military-industrial complex to sharpen the focus of its power.' Through scores of revisions, that idea persisted. As delivered, the speech memorably read, 'In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.' "

And so, regrettably, it appears that we are now nothing more than an entire nation of rent seekers.

Go ahead and continue using the term if you must. But don't forget to look in your own back pocket while you do so.

Re rent seekers. Is there a difference of some magnitude between these two persons?

Person A: Works for a non-profit institution, gets hired by government and paid accordingly from collected taxes to perform various wealth consuming tasks the government deems important. In this job he lobbies legislators and the voting public to support initiatives and legislation to continue government support of the non-profit institution.

Person B: Works for a for-profit corporation as an employee or a contractor and is paid from corporate revenues to perform various wealth producing tasks his company deems important. In this job he lobbies legislators and the voting public to support initiatives and legislation to continue government support of his employer, the for-profit corporation.

If there is no essential difference perceived by the discussants between Persons A and B, then the point of any subsequent discussion becomes elusive indeed.

There IS the important difference, nice going George. Honest, there are always going to be people looking to sway policy - I like George's point that some are actually hired/funded by Governemnt on more a grass roots model to promote their policy. The others are there to preserve their business enitity - now I will also say, that does not always mean the best for open business and capitalism. As we have seen in the recent past the centralisation of banking and control of the money markets and the mortgage business in this country - not a good thing at all. It is a progressive movement in many industries to make a few large players which are easier to manipulate and control than many small parties - ie: the mortgage business - eliminate the mortgage broker - the independent appraiser and the wholesale mortgage lender then make it back to the big banks only, that have already been pared back to a few - less competition = bad for the consumer, good for Gov. easier to control.

I have no problem with Steve personally - just the system, if not him somebody else would be there to do it for the government - its just the old sales training rule a 3rd party endorsement works - so they fund a bunch of 3rd parties. Honest, sales training 101 - use 3rd party endorsements, you see it on TV all the time.

Steve I would have more respect for you if you just admitted it, and so what somebody has to do it and you would be correct, somebody else would - instead of trying to defend undefensiveable positions with bullshit. Honest we know the game and its not you, just quit defending it ad nausium and we would like you better.

I don't want or need you to like me Dixon, you are a fraud and a liar. The truth is I produce wealth, not consume it, but there is NO point in talking to you guys about it because you have never been willing or interested in anything other than attacking people based on ideological purity.

You are the biggest bunch of losers I have ever come into contact with, and make our County, and it's people a laughing stock.

Actually I hear people talking derisively about these rent seeking non profits more than I hear anything else. Dixon and George have hit the nail on the head about rent seekers. They are actually a net loss for the economy and undermine free enterprise. SBC should disband and do us all a favor to save the little tax payers money left.

I guess WE could ALL be wrong. In other words THE COLLECTIVE belief of the comments on this blog believe that you DO NOT produce wealth, but rather, you live off the wealth of others. It is not fun being the target of THE COLLECTIVE... is it?

I'm sure you do help business'es try and figure out how to cope with wide range of new regulations coming down from the State. They in turn create the wealth, not sure we can actually say you do per se. I'm sure you help them and provide a service but you are still State funded for the most part but thats your job. Actually sounds like quite a good one too, so I congratulate you on getting it, as I said somebody has to do it.